Bob Pentecost's recent posting included:
> When that interlock is open, how should it be reported? Do "coverOpen" and
> "coverClosed" mean that the printer will still operate while interlockOpen
> and interlockClosed mean that the printer cannot operate?
This message is not to address Bob's question, but rather point out
the ongoing problem of using the terms "doorOpen" and "doorClosed"
versus "coverOpen" and "coverClosed".
This topic has been brought up a couple of times now, but I don't believe
we've ever resolved how to deal with it. That is, in some places in the
MIB the terms "doorOpen" and "doorClosed" are cited, while in other places
the terms "coverOpen" and "coverClosed" are used.
Shouldn't we be using consistent terms in the MIB?
Note, too, that these terms are not merely used in descriptive text,
but rather enums are defined with these conflicting terms:
On page 13 in section 18.104.22.168, "Overall Printer Status" (which is a
very critical section for this MIB), the "magic decoder ring" table
calls out the term "coverOpen" for a possible value for the
hrPrinterDetectedErrorState object. Unfortunately, the "official"
definition of this HR MIB object defines "doorOpen" and not "coverOpen",
so we really should change the descriptive table to match the official
On page 31 in the definition of the prtCoverStatus object, the defined
enums include "doorOpen" and "doorClosed".
On page 89 in the definition of the prtAlertCode object, two of the
defined enum values are "coverOpen" and "coverClosed", yet there are
another pair of enum values labeled "doorOpen" and "doorClosed".
Having both terms referring to both "door" and "cover" would appear to
be highly problematic, both for agent implementors and for management
Is there any reason to have both types of terms? If not, then shouldn't
we normalize the usage of these terms in the Draft text?